ITT: So called """""Villains""""" who did literally nothing wrong

Dorian Gray and Lord Henry. They just wanted to fuck bitches but that fucking gay painter cuck kept getting in the way.

Who is that old hag, Charlotte Haze?

I think everybody is missing the point of the thread

MEURSAULT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by extention of this every villain ever

God knows it is easy to be kind, the hard thing is to be just.

...

...

Dorian's edginess got Sybil killed. And he was wasting his life on empty nonsense.

Nice.

Not Dorian's fault she couldn't handle rejection. Literally everyone in the world has gone through what she has at some point. She was a coward.

at the end, even after all that happened, what Hitler was MOST guilty of, was war crimes.

Heathcliff

Was Caleb the villain of East of Eden?

Frankenstein's monster.
Frankenstein broke his promise and wanted nothing to do with him even though it is his duty as his creator.
ALL of humanity rejected him based on his looks.
Even the nice people living in the cottage attacked him even after he had been helping them out for two years, ungrateful bastards.

What he was most guilty of is ruining the reputation of European nationalism leading to the destruction of our countries and the migrant influx we are currently experiencing.

he was really more directly, and more immediately guilty of __war crimes__

>hitler shitposting

nah

yeah, European nationalism really was in need of having its reputation ruined after it had done so little damage in the decades before Hitler, and as it was so successful at keeping imigrants out of say, Great Britain or Russia.

Getting immigrants means you're not nationalistic enough.

>ex post facto laws
>anyone guilty

The Devil isn't the villain in Job.

what's the moral principle underlying true nationalism? its highest good? And I do mean its unreducable, highest good to the end of which everything should be done.

Filial piety.

>moral principle
>highest good
>unreducable
>to the end of which everything should be done
That's a lot of spookery in one post.

yeah, applied to such an egoist, unspooked notion as a nation! How contrived!

So normal people really shouldn't be nationalist, I see.

>Then out spake brave Horatius,
>The Captain of the Gate:
>"To every man upon this earth
>Death cometh soon or late.
>And how can man die better
>Than facing fearful odds,
>For the ashes of his fathers,
>And the temples of his Gods."

>muh universally preferable behavior
Suck on it. There's no reason we ought to love aliens as we love our mothers, and acting like it's already been settled only shows how intellectually turgid you are.

>So normal people really shouldn't be nationalist, I see.
Only normal people that don't want righteous leaders, peaceful citizens, and harmony under all of heaven, no. They shouldn't be nationalist.

>yeah, applied to such an egoist, unspooked notion as a nation! How contrived!
I'm in favour of nationalism not because I believe it is ideologically sound according to some elaborate system of sophistry but because it behoves me not to live amongst (sand)niggers since they lower the general quality of life wherever they are.

It's fairly straightforward.

>want righteous leaders, peaceful citizens, and harmony under all of heaven
>want
>anything but Filial piety

WAIT A SECOND!

DID YOU JUST LIE TO ME REGARDING THE HIGHEST GOOD?

>muh subjectively preferable behavior
Suck on it. There's no reason we ought to love our mothers more than we love aliens, and acting like it's already been settled only shows how intellectually turgid you are.

All these things follow respect for one's parents and ancestors, as surely as oak follows acorn.

>he doesn't love his mother
ayyyy lmao

that's pretty spooked man. You should read Stirner and when the Union of Egoists has dissolved into a spook.

It's not spooked at all, just like not wanting mosquitoes in your house is not spooked.

yeah, but why do you care? if respect for your parents is already given, the highest good is already reached. They aren't desirable as they don't lead to, but are derived from it.

So what you're saying is you just didn't answer my question?

just read Stirner or use another word for your made up concept.

I have read him lad.

That's like saying that once the acorn is planted, the boughs of the oak have been reached. You can't prefer the acorn or the branches. They're the same thing. Love of your parents, veneration of your ancestors, obedience to your lord, respect for your neighbor, they are all the same thing.

And who decided that goods can be ranked like Olympic medals? That is seriously begging the question.

F then, try again.

There's nothing incompatible with Stirner in supporting nationalism out of self-interest, silly.

yes but the oak would still have worth if it was derived from anything else but the acorn, while the acorn would lose its worth once it lost its fertility.

I asked you for the oak, you told me about the acorn. I didn't ask you to rank all goods, just to give me those that could not be further reduced.

You gave me one and then reduced it to three further things, of which I'm sure you would still derive further reasons of why you consider them good.

>I didn't ask you to rank all goods, just to give me those that could not be further reduced.
I'm sorry, then. That's not the way the Way works. Goods are not molecules that may be separated into elemental goods. That's insanely reductive. They are a great web of interactive, interdependent processes. Try to break one down and you find the ones you derived it from in the first place.

Oaks are not derived from acorns. They are acorns. They are part of the eternal chain of acorn and oak.

>I didn't ask you to rank all goods, just to give me those that could not be further reduced.
What were you asking for? If nationalism is an irreducible good, no use asking the question. If nationalism serves some other irreducible good, you'll just go "aha! that's not nationalism, we should look for that!" You're literally Euthydemus.

Hectors not the villain. Also there's no textual evidence in The Iliad of Achilles' invincibility even being a thing. He even delays running into the field after hearing about patroclus being killed because he doesn't have any armor.

Wtf Dorian did nearly everything wrong

>There's no reason we ought to love our mothers more than we love aliens,
In fact there are many reasons, both mechanical and abstract.

The basis of egoism is rationalism, and nationalism is not rational.

You can't just point out the huge flaw in your argument and then say "well obviously it doesn't count because that would be mean".

Not defending nationalism but your own self-interest isn't necessarily rational.

Have you read Stirner?

Just because if you haven't, egoism doesn't mean what it normally means.

If you have, then why you think it's not rational would be interesting.

Shylock is a bad character because he can't show forgiveness. The christian characters(portia is literally a divine symbol) are able to forgive and forget throughout the play - shylock is a commentary on why judaism is good, but christianity is the important next step.

tl;dr jesus brought us forgiveness, and the jews not accepting him makes them fundamentally flawed in a world where love and forgiveness are the path to happiness.

Shylock was never supposed to be a villian. He just is what he is. But he is portrayed as being the wrong thing because his limitations threaten to break down the happiness of life.

I'm fluent in German and read the original + Stirner's critics.

If you find enjoyment in acting irrationally (taking "unnecessary" risks, blowing your money on "useless" shit, etc) it would be spooked of you to act the way people would term rational. In this sense rationality might become just another fixed idea.

...

You've misunderstood me. The reason to be egoistic as opposed to not being egoistic is that egoism is rational. This extends to your example; it is rational to act irrationally. This is opposed to being spooked, which is irrational.

Neither are good or bad, as that would itself be spooked.

This is what Stirner says. You are right that rationality can be a spook, but rationality is nonetheless the basis of egoism.

There is no reason to be egoistic.

The reason to be egoistic is reason.

No. That would mean we are moving in circles. If you have a reason for being an egoist (i.e. its "rationality") then you have to ask yourself why acting rational is desirable, the answer being "because I want to" or "because I enjoy it", "because it is in my self-interest".

user are you aware of what this conversation is about? I'm not arguing for why you should be egoist. I'm arguing that the first user shouldn't be egoist, OR shouldn't be nationalist.

Egoism -is- rational (according to itself); this is what distinguishes it from being spooked, for the reasons you are saying. Original user was trying to argue for using the irrational nationalism out of rational egoism; it's possible to be egoistically nationalist (for example genuinely believing all sandniggers ruin everything) but this is irrational (because they don't), and as it is irrational AND you have already embraced egoism purely because it is rational you should either discard egoism or discard nationalism.

shut up and call your mom and tell her you love her you faggot

Puritanism is a self-defeating and highly degenerate ideology.

Buck Mulligan

Quasimodo did nothing wrong, first he was followind orders from Frollo and later all was fucked up because he was deaf.

Cao Cao is one of the few "harsh but fair to the peasant" rulers who instead of becoming the Good Guy Noble Basher fairy-tale figure (see Ivan the Terrible, much beloved in Russia and suffering from a horribly translated epithet) became the Big Meanie. All thanks to Chinese Mallory (what a hack).

literally how?

>caused Sybil's suicide
Stupid bitch should know better than to drink acid because her crush said boo hoo mean things to her
>killed Basil
self defense
>wasted life on empty things
Not very different from the average NEET who posts here. At least he enjoyed himself.

Show me one person who thinks Quasimodo did anything wrong

Are you from the Facebook meme page?

No, it would be stupid because nobody has one central irreducible good they seek. That might seem nice and clean to cultic Greeks but it's just not how humans work.

...

Based

Dumb question... What is he doing in this pose? Brushing his hair back? Thinking? Sweating?

Heathcliff. Prove me wrong.

From the wikipedia
The uplifted right arm allows the artist to explore the patterned tensions of the serratus anterior muscles, and the gesture and the angle of the head suggest that the génie is warding off "divine chastisement.

Also, the sculptor Guillaume Geefs was known for making pretty sexy sculptures, so Lucifer could also be striking a sensual pose here

It's so easy to laugh
It's so easy to hate
It takes strength to be gentle and kind

This desu

Not Javert's fault that the law was injust. He doesn't make the laws, he just follows it.

Javert wasn't a villain, he was a tragic hero.